Ecosystem Services of the Baltic Sea—State and Changes during the Last 150 Years
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
In this submission, the authors presented the exclusively important results of a long-term assessment of ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea over 150 years, starting from 1870. The utilization of 3D-models combined with socio-economic data enabled this large-scale assessment and a full coverage of ecosystem services of the entire sea, with consideration of its spatial sub-division into 18 standard sub-basins. The research was designed appropriately and carefully implemented with high professionalism. The article provides sufficient background and includes the major relevant references. The methods are adequately described. The results are clearly presented and illustrated by the highly informative and easily readable figures. The conclusions are well supported by the obtained results and discussed in sufficient details. The results of this research are of utmost importance since they can complement natural scientific ecosystem quality assessments and meet practical needs of the environmental policy-making and management in the region.
To my opinion, the article has a very high overall merit considering its significance and novelty, scientific soundness and interest to readers. I could have recommended accepting this manuscript for publication in its present form, if not the need of fine tuning of the text in certain sections and minor editing of the English language (mainly misprints). Some of the suggested corrections are listed below.
Specific comments
Line (L) 1: Article
L 14: I recommend indicating the assessment periods in the second sentence of the Abstract (e.g., as in line 102).
L 60: last but not least
L 107: the 1960s
L 108: the years around 2010
L 131-133,153, 156-157, 324-325, 494 etc.: the citations in the text are not uniform.
L 162-164, 449-459, and legends to Figs 3–6: please write either “data are” (preferably) or “data is” consequently throughout the entire manuscript.
L 253: elements, … (add comma)
L 254: the processes of
L 298: linearly
L 302 and in Fig. 2: “Blue algae blooms” is an uncommon expression; I would recommend substituting it by “cyanobacterial blooms” or “blue-green algae blooms”.
L 476: 1960
L 477: Baltic-wide
L 514, 530: demonstrated (not “saw”)
L 537: was (not “is”)
L 576: was in the (not “had the”)
L 584: had (not “has”)
L 594, 650: 150 (not “130”)
L 660, 682: better to delete “e.g.”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageTo my opinion, the English language of the manuscript is very good and requires only minor editing; the examples are provided in the previous section (Comments and Suggestions for Authors).
Author Response
Dear colleague,
thank you very much for your comments.
All smaller improvements and corrections were carried out.
Because of the comments of the other reviewers, the discussion was sub-divided and strongly extended (chapters 4.2 and 4.3 are new). Each single ecosystem service is now addressed and discussed separately, the short-comings are outlined, where possible, our results are compared to existing literature and perspectives for future research are provided.
The conclusion was strongly modified.
The monetary value of fisheries was recalculated based on the annual catches. This means that all monetary service now reflect the annual flow of ecosystem services.
Best wishes, G. Schernewski
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I appreciate the possibility to review your manuscript. This manuscript has innovative and interesting topic which examined the ecosystem services across the entire Baltic Sea over a period of 150 years 14 using ecosystem model simulations and historical socio-economic data.
The literature is dense and comprehensive, with well-chosen contributions, suitable for the objectives of the paper. The approach is interesting, with courageous and ambitious assumptions. The results are well argumented,
However, the following comments must be revised as follows.
Discussion section provides an overview of the study but falls in explaining the research gap it aims to fill and potential contributions - both for science and practice. In my view, this section requires a substantial revision - it requires a consistent and unifying narrative rooted in the existing literature on the one hand and in the presented results on the other.
Conclusions lack references to compare the author’s findings with previously published works. There is no convincing concluding debate regarding the unique contribution of the reviewed paper.
However, if the above suggestions could be revised, this study is recommended to be published in the journal. I hope the authors will find these thought useful.
Author Response
Dear colleague,
thank you very much for your comments. To address your criticism, the discussion was largely rewritten, sub-divided and strongly extended (chapters 4.2 and 4.3 are new). Each single ecosystem service is now addressed and discussed separately, the short-comings are outlined, where possible, our results are compared to existing literature and perspectives for future research are provided.
The conclusion was strongly modified.
The monetary value of fisheries was recalculated based on the annual catches. This means that all monetary service now reflect the annual flow of ecosystem services.
Best wishes, G. Schernewski
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEnvironments-3128404 Environments- Ecosystem services of the Baltic Sea- state and changes during the last 15 years
This is a very well written and documented study of ecosystem services from the Baltic Sea region. I just have a few minor points to improve the article.
Introduction
Lines 68 – should be “exist”
Line 88- suggest use the term “resolution”
Study State and Methods
Line-199- what is “SI” -please spell out and or define
Results
Lines 628-629- it is true from cultural ecosystem assessment literature that there is often overlap between active recreation and landscape aesthetics ecosystems service leading to double accounting. So, the question is how to address this issue rather than declaring it is not meaningful. This is important given the increasing valuation due to tourism for the Baltic Sea.
Discussion
Lines 654-657- This is a nice overview of study limitations but the issue I raised above in lines 628-229 could be discussed in this section.
Conclusion is very short. The authors could address study limitations that could lead to improved methods, the generalizability of their approach to other geographic locations, and future research needed.
Author Response
Dear colleague,
thank you very much for your comments.
All smaller improvements and corrections were carried out.
To deal with your criticism, the discussion was largely rewritten, sub-divided and strongly extended (chapters 4.2 and 4.3 are largely new). Each single ecosystem service (including all cultural services) is now addressed and discussed separately, the short-comings are outlined, where possible, our results are compared to existing literature and perspectives for future research are provided. The conclusion was strongly modified.
The aspect of a potential double counting is addressed in the discussion. Our approach uses a literature-based total monetary value for all cultural services. This avoids double-counting but includes the problem how to share the sum between the two cultural services.
The monetary value of fisheries was recalculated based on the annual catches. This means that all monetary service now reflect the annual flow of ecosystem services.
